HANNAFORD v BARRETT - [2016] FCCA 106

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HANNAFORD v BARRETT & ANOR

[2016] FCCA 106

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether employment dismissed in contravention of a general protection of the Fair Work Act 2009 – whether claim or dispute was subject of certificate issued pursuant to s.368 of the Fair Work Act 2009 – whether the Court has jurisdiction – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 ss.341(1)(c)(ii), 365, 368, 369(1), 372, 539, 540(1)(a), 544
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001

Cases:

Sumontha v Action Workforce Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCCA 725
Faulkner v Tidewater Marine Australia Pty Ltd (No.2) [2015] FCCA 2218

Applicant:

CHARRELLE HANNAFORD

First Respondent:

ANTONY BARRETT

Second Respondent:

ANTONY BARRETT AND SUSAN BARRETT AS TRUSTEES FOR THE DR A BARRETT'S SERVICE AND MANAGEMENT TRUST

File Number:

BRG 275 of 2015

Judgment of:

Judge Jarrett

Hearing date:

By written submission

Date of Last Submission:

1 June 2015

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

20 January 2016

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Corney & Lind

Solicitors for the Respondents:

DLA Piper Australia

ORDERS

The application in a case filed on 18 May 2015 be dismissed.
The application be adjourned to 7 March 2016 at 9:30am for directions in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia sitting at Brisbane.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 275 of 2015

CHARRELLE HANNAFORD

Applicant

And

ANTONY BARRETT

First Respondent

And

ANTONY BARRETT AND SUSAN BARRETT AS TRUSTEES FOR THE DR A BARRETT'S SERVICE AND MANAGEMENT TRUST

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 27 March, 2015 the applicant commenced proceedings in this Court asserting that she had been dismissed from the respondent’s employment in contravention of general protection as provided for in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). She delivered a Statement of Claim with her initiating application.
By an application in a case filed on 15 May, 2015 the respondents apply for an order that paragraphs 29, 30, 36 and 37 of the Statement of Claim be struck out.
In summary, the respondents assert that the claim sought to be raised by the applicant in those paragraphs was not a claim or a dispute that was the subject of a certificate issued pursuant to s.368(3)(a) of the Act and accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain those claims.

Background

The first respondent is a dentist. He carries on a dental practice. The second respondents, it seems, provide practice management services to the first respondent.
The applicant was employed either by the first respondent or alternatively the second respondents in the position of a dental assistant and administration officer from 25 March, 2008 until her employment was terminated on 8 January, 2015. The applicant claims that the termination of her employment was adverse action for the purposes of the Act.
In her Statement of Claim, the applicant alleges that she had a conversation with the first respondent in September, 2014 in which she raised with the first respondent difficulties she had with his conduct towards another employee of the dental practice.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading HANNAFORD v BARRETT

Details

AGLC: HANNAFORD v BARRETT [2016] FCCA 106
Case: [2016] FCCA 106
Decision Date: 20 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Hannaford v Barrett*, the Supreme Court of Queensland was asked to determine a dispute between the applicant, Hannaford, and the respondent, Barrett. The core of the disagreement concerned the interpretation and enforceability of a deed of settlement and release entered into by the parties.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the deed of settlement, which purported to release the respondent from all claims, was valid and effective in preventing the applicant from pursuing further legal action. This involved considering the principles of contract law, specifically regarding the construction of settlement agreements and the effect of releases. The Court also had to assess whether any vitiating factors, such as misrepresentation or duress, might render the deed unenforceable.

Judge Jarrett found that the deed of settlement was clear and unambiguous in its terms, and that it effectively released the respondent from all claims that the applicant had or might have had against him. The Court applied the ordinary principles of contractual interpretation, giving the words of the deed their natural and ordinary meaning. There was no evidence presented to suggest that the deed was entered into under duress or misrepresentation, and therefore, the Court held that the deed was binding on the parties.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the applicant's claim be dismissed, as it was barred by the terms of the deed of settlement and release.

Orders